*Fav0urite wEed*

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
quandry
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:31 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by quandry » Mon May 29, 2006 2:17 am

Keyser Soze wrote:Err, I did read the link. There is plenty of evidence to show there is a correlation. Do a google search yourself and you'll see!!!

Also, as I have said before, resorting to abuse to get a point across is a sign of poor intellect and an inability to argue/debate an issue in a mature, adult way.
First off, I don't know why I'm bothering with you, obviously you just like to try to get a rise out of people, and you think you are always right. I really question whether you even read the article. I did your little google search suggestion and found more articles saying there is no link between weed smoking and lung cancer, not the other way around--maybe you should do a search yourself!

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_57309

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12943013/

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c ... yth4.shtml

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Are you a medical doctor at a leading research university? I don't think so. So where do you get off saying these guys are totally wrong? The article I initially sited was by researchers at UCLA, the first article in the list above is about a similar study a year ago by Johns Hopkins--these are two leading medical research universities. Both sets of researchers expected to find a link between week and lung cancer, both were admittedly surprised to find no link whatsoever. A) scientists don't like to admit they are wrong, and don't do it lightly B) both of these institutes may have recieved state of federal money for research, and might have even been trying to find a link to help anti-drug causes C) you aren't a research scientist. SO, where do you get off just dismissing all of this with zero proof? Please post some links to serious scientific research to back up you bs.

Second, as glu pointed out, you started the "abuse" with a long paragraph of idiotic sarcastic phrases and "blah blah blah" in response to my post--please spare me your lame excuse that sarcasm isn't a "direct insult" --it is one of the more inflammatory means of insulting someone that I know of--making fun of something someone believes in is abuse, is insulting. not that I let your bs get to me, your track record here preceeds you--that is all you do is say argumentative crap with nothing to back it up. feel free to back up your crap talk with some factual proof, otherwise STFU. I'd like to know why we should believe your bs instead of believing leading research scientists who publish their findings and admit their hypothesis was wrong. These scientists have no ulterior motive to publish these results--in fact the results they published proved they were wrong.
Keyser Soze wrote:Am I real? Am I a myth? Am I mad or am I a genius?
none of the above, you are an assclown, assbag, and asshat all rolled up in one stinky pile of bs
Dell Studio XPS 8100 Windows 7 64-bit, 10 GB RAM. RME Multiface, Avalon U5 & M5, Distressor, Filter Factory, UC33e, BCR-2000, FCB1010, K-Station, Hr 824 & H120 sub, EZ Bus, V-Drums, DrumKat EZ, basses, guitars, pedals... http://www.ryan-hughes.net

stealth1
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by stealth1 » Mon May 29, 2006 2:57 am

Norther lights. The north (UK) users know that

Keyser Soze
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: In A Galaxy Far, Far Away.

Post by Keyser Soze » Mon May 29, 2006 3:48 am

quandry wrote: First off, I don't know why I'm bothering with you, obviously you just like to try to get a rise out of people, and you think you are always right.
I will always admit when I am wrong, so spare me your false assumptions.

quandry wrote:
First off, I don't know why I'm bothering with you

My guess is that your ego doesn't like being disagreed with.

quandry wrote:
I really question whether you even read the article. I did your little google search suggestion and found more articles saying there is no link between weed smoking and lung cancer, not the other way around--maybe you should do a search yourself!
I read the article and all your links. Your links by the way are not very conclusive nor add weight to your argument (see below). With regard to finding articles supporting marijuana use, I can find just as many criticising it. Here are a few:



http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/r ... rlink.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... D=10349782

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/conte ... r_Risk.asp

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/effe ... ijuana.htm

http://www.justthinktwice.com/factficti ... rmless.cfm

http://www.localnewsleader.com/elytimes ... &id=136252

http://www.vibe.com.au/drugs/facts2.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/141891.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2419713.stm

http://www.marijuana-detox.com/smoking-marijuana.htm

quandry wrote:


Are you a medical doctor at a leading research university? I don't think so. So where do you get off saying these guys are totally wrong? The article I initially sited was by researchers at UCLA, the first article in the list above is about a similar study a year ago by Johns Hopkins--these are two leading medical research universities. Both sets of researchers expected to find a link between week and lung cancer, both were admittedly surprised to find no link whatsoever. A) scientists don't like to admit they are wrong, and don't do it lightly B) both of these institutes may have recieved state of federal money for research, and might have even been trying to find a link to help anti-drug causes C) you aren't a research scientist. SO, where do you get off just dismissing all of this with zero proof? Please post some links to serious scientific research to back up you bs.
I could ask you the same question. Are you a research scientist? "So where do you get off saying these guys are totally" right? Scientists don't like to admit they are wrong is maybe true, but sometimes they are and there are many instances of that!!!! Read the above links. Whatever links/arguments you provide I will also provide to contradict you, so we could go on forever if you want.

quandry wrote:
Second, as glu pointed out, you started the "abuse" with a long paragraph of idiotic sarcastic phrases and "blah blah blah" in response to my post--please spare me your lame excuse that sarcasm isn't a "direct insult" --it is one of the more inflammatory means of insulting someone that I know of--
It wasn't abuse and it wasn't a direct insult. It was a reaction to a ridiculous comment that was not directed at you personally and was meant to be humourous. But I suppose you didn't quite get it.

quandry wrote:
not that I let your bs get to me,
If that is true what you say, why the insults? Maybe a sign of poor intellect, feelings of inadequacy...?

quandry wrote:
that is all you do is say argumentative crap with nothing to back it up. feel free to back up your crap talk with some factual proof, otherwise....
Au contraire. Read the links. I can provide many, many more.


quandry wrote: I'd like to know why we should believe your bs instead of believing leading research scientists who publish their findings and admit their hypothesis was wrong.
Scientists are often wrong. But it's like what I said before, that drug users all rally around statements justifying the use of drugs like flies around a steaming turd.

quandry wrote:
..... you are an assclown, assbag, and asshat all rolled up in one stinky pile of bs
As I said, sticks and stones......................................Feeble mind....................................blah, blah, blah..................................Argue like a grown up please..............................fascist standpoint....................................


By the way this link that you gave me doesn't support your case:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c ... yth4.shtml


nor this one you gave supports that it doesn't give cancer:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

This one just refers to the original article you referred to:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html


The following one I can give a link to contradict it:

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_57309

This link also refers to your original claim:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12943013/

And this one refers to nothing at all:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html


You are going to have to come up with better than that to prove your point.

Anyway, as I said, your poor arguments and insults are signs of a weak mind and lack of intellect or valid argument. You really should argue like a grown up and you almost did but you let yourself down with the abuse. Shame really!!


Till next time. Hugs and kisses Quandry.
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

Keyser Soze
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: In A Galaxy Far, Far Away.

Post by Keyser Soze » Mon May 29, 2006 4:12 am

Let me also add that if you believe that inhaling hot, burning smoke into your lungs is beneficial to you then you really are living in gaga land. But hey, believe what you like. It's your life and your lungs. I hope you don't end up regreting it one day, should it be the case that you are coughing up blood and need an oxygen tank to help you breathe. I don't wish it on anyone!!!
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

subbasshead
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:30 am
Location: wellington, new zealand

Post by subbasshead » Mon May 29, 2006 4:17 am

what a ridiculous argument, give it up!
or are u both just venting some PMT?!?

Its obvious to anyone with any clues at all that inhaling anything into your
lungs except clean air ISNT going to make you healthier...
So make your own informed decision on the risks & stop trying to fight
battles that you are never going to win....

me, back in the day i preferred the nice range of hash in amsterdam cafes...
always found hydro way to chemical & debilitating.... but i only used it
to do stuff (making music, etc), rather than instead of doing stuff...
i tend to find inspiration without drugs these days, but to each their own....

Keyser Soze
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: In A Galaxy Far, Far Away.

Post by Keyser Soze » Mon May 29, 2006 4:35 am

subbasshead wrote:what a ridiculous argument, give it up!
or are u both just venting some PMT?!?

Its obvious to anyone with any clues at all that inhaling anything into your
lungs except clean air ISNT going to make you healthier...
So make your own informed decision on the risks & stop trying to fight
battles that you are never going to win....

i tend to find inspiration without drugs these days, but to each their own....
I share your sentiments. I should say though, that my original post was meant to be humourous but quandry took it the wrong way and started with the insults. So I had to respond. I find it amusing actually that this guy is getting all riled up because his argument is contradicted and is nonsensical. As you say, "inhaling anything into your lungs except clean air ISNT going to make you healthier." Common sense though seems to have escaped him.
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

quandry
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:31 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by quandry » Mon May 29, 2006 4:48 am

Keyser Soze wrote:
subbasshead wrote:what a ridiculous argument, give it up!
or are u both just venting some PMT?!?

Its obvious to anyone with any clues at all that inhaling anything into your
lungs except clean air ISNT going to make you healthier...
So make your own informed decision on the risks & stop trying to fight
battles that you are never going to win....

i tend to find inspiration without drugs these days, but to each their own....
I share your sentiments. I should say though, that my original post was meant to be humourous but quandry took it the wrong way and started with the insults. So I had to respond. I find it amusing actually that this guy is getting all riled up because his argument is contradicted and is nonsensical. As you say, "inhaling anything into your lungs except clean air ISNT going to make you healthier." Common sense though seems to have escaped him.
well, maybe if you guys read the article, you'd see that common sense apparently escaped the scientists as well, as their extensive study proved their hypothesis wrong. you started with the insults with the sarcasm and blah, blah blah business, not me. It's not "my argument", it was a relevant recent news article I posted on a relevant thread, and I've admitted that it surprised me as well, and does seem contradictory to "common sense". Instead of reading the article and posting an intelligent response, you choose to write a paragraph of insulting sarcasm as an attempt to ridicule the findings of the study, and me for posting it. However, I guess I'm more inclined to believe the results of scientific research than just "common sense", call me crazy. It was once common sense that the world was flat. As I haven't conducted research myself, call me crazy for listening to the research of others who are well respected and trained in their field. from the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083353.htm

"The findings were a surprise to the researchers. "We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500-1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles. "

"The new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Dr. Tashkin said. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers--they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."

One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."


But of course you won't bother to read this, or you'll find some government sponsored article to attempt to refute it, or you're too busy spouting off supposed truisms whilst ignoring the findings of the study. maybe if you had the credibility of academic research doctors, people would be more inclined to listen to your research, as opposed to your unscientific conjectures...
Dell Studio XPS 8100 Windows 7 64-bit, 10 GB RAM. RME Multiface, Avalon U5 & M5, Distressor, Filter Factory, UC33e, BCR-2000, FCB1010, K-Station, Hr 824 & H120 sub, EZ Bus, V-Drums, DrumKat EZ, basses, guitars, pedals... http://www.ryan-hughes.net

Keyser Soze
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: In A Galaxy Far, Far Away.

Post by Keyser Soze » Mon May 29, 2006 5:43 am

quandry wrote:

But of course you won't bother to read this, or you'll find some government sponsored article to attempt to refute it, or you're too busy spouting off supposed truisms whilst ignoring the findings of the study. maybe if you had the credibility of academic research doctors, people would be more inclined to listen to your research, as opposed to your unscientific conjectures...
I have read everything you have provided a link to. Yes, I can find articles to refute anything you have to say. My links are based on findings of credible academic research.

quandry wrote:
you started with the insults with the sarcasm and blah, blah blah business, not me. It's not "my argument", it was a relevant recent news article I posted on a relevant thread,
As I said before, I did not insult you. It was a sarcastic comment at the findings of the article. Not a direct attack on you. Whereas, you on the otherhand directed your insults at me by saying stuff like:
............you are an assclown, assbag, and asshat all rolled up in one stinky pile of bs".

So I didn't start the insults or got personal and I still won't resort to insults. You can dish it out all you like, it means nothing to me but is detrimental to your argument and highly amusing watching you get all riled up.

Let me say one more time!!! My initial sarcastic comment was directed at the article!!!! The fact you take it personally suggests that you agree with what the article says and that your ego doesn't like being disagreed with.

Just because a bunch of scientists make certain findings, doesn't mean that they are accurate. There will always be a case against. Thalidomide is a case in point. It was "thoroughly" tested by "respected scientists in their field" before it came out and it was deemed "safe". Well, go tell that to the people born who suffered the consequences from it.

Believing that inhaling hot, burning smoke into your lungs is ok, is just plain stupid.

quandry wrote:
It was once common sense that the world was flat. As I haven't conducted research myself, call me crazy for listening to the research of others who are well respected and trained in their field.
That's right, it was common sense to believe the earth was flat. Scientists of the day were telling everyone that, just like the scientists who said Galileo was talking nonsense. If you respect the views of scientists researching their field, then why don't you respect the views and findings of the scientists in the links I gave you? Or are you a to put it metaphorically, a "fly flocking around a steaming turd"? So in essence, you want to believe what that article says because it justifies smoking marijuana.

Whatever argument you have, I can contradict it and find evidence to back it up. Common sense is obvious in this one and don't knock common sense because it helps you to survive. It is common sense that tells you to not cross the road before looking, common sense tells you that eating shit is bad for you, etc........
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

Digi V
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:18 am

Post by Digi V » Mon May 29, 2006 6:10 am

the only weed we see around here in south florida is


Krypto

DeadlyKungFu
Posts: 3603
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:26 pm

Post by DeadlyKungFu » Mon May 29, 2006 6:33 am

A friend with weed is a friend indeed.

Monkey Ball
White Widow
Purple Urple

CopyRightJustice
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:18 pm

Post by CopyRightJustice » Mon May 29, 2006 6:46 am

Sill smoking ?

forgie
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:10 am

Post by forgie » Mon May 29, 2006 7:41 am

Man, you guys need to chill the fuck out.

Keyser Soze: there is a possibility that something in dope actually prevents cancer. I'm not saying smoking dope is good for you, I'm just saying that it's a possibility. This latest study certainly supports that possibility. The fact that this is possible is not debatable. Remember, I said POSSIBLE, not PROBABLE or DEFINITELY TRUE. Your righteous tone sounds a tad.... well self-righteous and arrogant.

For someone who claims a critical mind and intelligence, surely you are aware of the huge amount of money and power that would love to make dope look worse then it is. Prejudice and money have a lot of power over scientists. Seriously. I know some scientists here in Australia, and the amount of political interference is very disturbing. In other words, your plethora of linked "articles" are redundant, that's like linking articles to respected "articles" on why the Iraq invasion was the "right thing to do". Everyone knows that there is an ulterior motive there. Unfortunately this means that true scientific knowledge about the REAL effects of drugs that have been deemed illicit by our all-powerful overlords is scarce.

Face it, you don't know any better then I do. I hate drug-users spouting shit about why the drugs they take are good for them (I had friends tell me that both weed and shrooms are OK because they're natural). That's just as bad as the DEA rigging scientific studies to prove that illicit drugs are bad for you.

At the end of the day, you cannot say with any serious certainty that weed doesn't have anti-cancer properties. Your common sense may say that it doesn't, but your common sense is based on things you've seen and witnessed. And I doubt you've seen and witnessed ACTUAL scientific studies/data on dope and it's effects. Neither have I. That's why I will remain open-minded about it. You appear to be making a hypocrite out of yourself by denying that the studies conclusions might be correct.

nolus
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: Little Blighty On The Down

Post by nolus » Mon May 29, 2006 8:47 am

As has been said, inhaling smoke can not really be good for you, even if THC miraculously prevents lung cancer it still can cause all manner of other respiratory problems. Best bet is bake some cookies.

The bad news is that even if you breath nothing but clean air, drink only pure water and eat a healthy ballanced diet you will still die - possibly even from cancer or another horible debilitating long term disease.

But if you never get stoned or taste a beer or ride a motorbike at high speed, or ..., then your life is less full because of it. Those sensations will never impinge on your conciousness and you will go to your death knowing less about the world than you could have done.

It's important to keep these things in ballance. Longevity is not neccessarily the most important attribute of life.


PS. my favourites are a nice high grade Lebanese or the katama they sell in the Dutch Flowers coffee shop in Amsterdam (if it's still there?)
"That very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton, and rather unexpected... in a G Major"

rbmonosylabik
Posts: 2659
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:27 am

Post by rbmonosylabik » Mon May 29, 2006 8:56 am

Image
Image

MBP 2.3 GHz i5, Live 9.6.1, Push, MPD32, Rane SL2

joesapo
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Post by joesapo » Mon May 29, 2006 9:08 am

Image


BaCk In ThE dAy... I used to love the Haze strains.

Peace Out.

Post Reply